No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump sets himself up to be jailed pending trial
Episode Date: August 6, 2023Trump inches dangerously close to violating the terms of his release with continued threats against prosecutors and witnesses. Brian interviews Congressman Jamie Raskin about his reaction to ...Trump’s indictment after himself having led Trump’s impeachment and served on the January 6 Committee, his response to Republican lies that the indictment is an attack on Trump’s free speech rights, and his decision not to run for the US Senate.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.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Today, we're going to talk about Trump inching dangerously close to violating the terms of his release with continued threats against prosecutors and witnesses.
And I interviewed Congressman Jamie Raskin about his response to Trump's indictment after himself having led Trump's impeachment and serving on the January 6th committee.
His response to Republican lies that the indictment is an attack on Trump's free speech rights and his decision not to run for the U.S. Senate.
I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and you're listening to No Lie.
So here's what the magistrate judge said to Trump at his arraignment.
Quote, I want to remind you it is a crime to intimidate a witness or retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution or to otherwise obstruct justice.
Do you understand these warnings, sir?
At which point, Trump nodded yes.
Now, within 24 hours, Trump posted onto Truth Social, if you go after me, I'm coming after you.
So immediately, Jack Smith requested a protective order that would prevent Trump from disseminating discovery materials to the public when he gets them.
And he invoked Trump's post in that order.
Like, Jack Smith was basically saying, Trump does not think that rules apply to him.
We told him not to intimidate or retaliate, and he did exactly that within 24 hours.
And so knowing what we know about this guy, we think a protective order is necessary because he will post about what he learns in discovery.
Now, the judge gave Trump until Monday at 5 p.m. to respond to that.
Trump requested an extension and the judge denied it.
Off to a bad start.
But it gets worse.
Trump then took to Truth Social again, this time writing, wow, it's finally happened.
little Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as governor of Indiana until I came
along and made him VP, has gone to the dark side. I never told a newly emboldened, not based on
his 2% poll numbers, Pence to have put me above the Constitution or that Mike was, quote,
too honest. He's delusional and now he wants to show he's a tough guy. Now, that quote, is in
direct response to the indictment, which said that Trump told Pence, quote, you're too
honest when the vice president objected to blocking Biden's win. In other words, Pence's testimony
was used against Donald Trump, and Trump decided to log on the truth social and retaliate
against Mike Pence for providing information about this case to the prosecution.
And now might be a good time to reiterate the terms of Trump's release.
Quote, it is a crime to intimidate a witness or retaliate against anyone for providing
information about your case to the prosecution.
So look, Jack Smith gave Trump a freebie with the first one.
Trump clearly violated terms of his release when he issued like this blanket threat that
if you go after me, I'm coming after you.
But Jack Smith just used that as evidence that Trump is physically incapable of.
of not vomiting out whatever he learns
and what he will learn in discovery.
But the attack on Pence here is different.
Trump invoked Pence's words
from the indictment,
showing that it's clear retaliation for cooperating
and therefore leaving himself
no plausible deniability here.
So here's what should happen.
Jack Smith, or even the judge herself,
should have what's called a show cause hearing,
where it'll be up to the defendant
to show why he didn't violate the terms of his release
and why he shouldn't be punished
or sanctioned or even held in pretrial detention.
It's basically Trump's,
chance to plead his case now that he's been credibly accused of violating the terms of his
release. Now, look, is it likely that Trump will be held in pretrial detention? Of course not. Of course,
that'll be a last resort. But here's the thing. If it's going to happen, this is how it happens.
Trump is doing exactly what he needs to do to get there. And look, he's doing it because he has no
concept of accountability. That's why we're here in the first place. The guy is a lifelong conman
who does not believe that any rules apply to him. And as many times as Susan Collins tries to
will this idea into reality that Donald Trump will learn his lesson this time, he will never
learn his lesson. He will keep committing crimes. He will keep obstructing justice. He will keep
intimidating witnesses. He will keep retaliating against people who assist in his prosecution.
It will literally never stop. So knowing that, it's not completely out of the question that
the judge recognizes what a danger Trump poses, not only to the proper execution of this case and this
trial, but to society in general. So while some type of pretrial detention is of course unlikely,
just making the case that it is still the natural conclusion given the fact that Trump
will never, ever, ever comply with any orders that he's given.
So we'll see if such a step is ever taken, but let's not pretend for a moment that it
wouldn't be justified.
Next step is my interview with Congressman Jamie Raskin.
Now, I've got Congressman Jamie Raskin.
Thanks so much for coming back on.
Hey, it's my pleasure to be with you, Brian.
Now, you were the lead impeachment manager in Trump's impeachment for inciting his supporters
to wage an insurrection on the Capitol on January.
With this week's indictment and arrest for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election,
does this feel like it's come full circle for you?
Like, what's your general response to the latest news?
It feels like a great vindication of the rule of law in American democracy to me.
It was great to see it spelled out in black and white in print in the indictment that,
you know, all of the factual allegations supporting the idea that Trump conspired to
to interfere with federal proceedings, specifically the counting of electoral college votes in
joint session on January 6th, that he conspired also to essentially counterfeit the electoral
process and that he conspired to violate the civil rights of the people, specifically the
voting rights. And it was Abraham Lincoln who said that insurrection is an assault
on the leaders in the democracy.
Now, you also sat on the January 6th committee.
Can you discuss the extent to which your work on that committee
kind of informed the indictment that we saw?
Well, I'm starting to think of it this way
that the January 6th Select Committee gave America the facts.
And special counsel, Jack Smith, has delivered the law
with respect to crimes that were committed.
We did make a referral.
I chaired that subcommittee we had to prepare to make a referral of criminal charges.
I think three of the four charges that we recommended were embodied in the indictment.
One was not, which was aiding and abetting and giving aid and comfort to insurrection.
We think there was overwhelming evidence for that when Trump continued to tweet out his support
when he tweeted in the middle of the riot that Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what
needed to be done, when he praised everybody at the end saying they were American patriots,
great patriots and heroes and so on and said, never forget this day.
So we think that there was lots of evidence for that.
We understand that the statute, given the fact that Donald Trump,
is in a class by himself, had never really been used in this way before. And I think they were
nervous about that. And I think they were also thinking properly that that would open the door
for Trump to claim that somehow his free speech was being violated, which is ridiculous. They're
trying that anyway. But that's silly. Everybody understands he's being charged for his criminal
offenses, conspiring to obstruct a federal proceeding, conspiring to defraud the American people
of a real election conspiring to violate everybody's voting rights. And obviously, you know,
that kind of criminal conduct conspiracy is brigaded with speech. The court has always recognized
that. I mean, when you conspire to rob a bank, you talk about robbing the bank, but that doesn't
make an act of free speech. Right. Right. And it's the same thing about storming the capital
or substituting the real electoral process with a counterfeit one.
Why do you think that they're relying on this, you know, tenuous defense that this is all an attack on Trump's free speech rights?
Given how easily debunkable they are in the public sphere, I mean, Jack Smith included on page two of a 45-page indictment that Trump had every right,
not only to say whatever he wanted, but even to lie about the election.
Well, obviously Smith predicted that that would be Trump's maneuver.
I mean, he's got one move, and so, of course, he's going to be dancing it, you know, but it's not very compelling.
You know, the criminal law distinguishes between speech and conduct, and he's not being prosecuted for any of his speech.
He's being prosecuted for the criminal conduct he engaged in, and there may have been speech that enabled it at certain points.
But again, you know, there's a lot of crimes necessarily involve speech like insider trading almost always involves speech like antitrust violations when companies get together to fix prices.
That's all based on speech, but it's the conduct that's being punished.
So, you know, they might try and confuse people about that, but they're not going to confuse any judge or any court about that.
I mean, we've been around the track in proving that point.
And they're basically saying there's a First Amendment defense to conspiracy, which is absurd.
Right. Now, on the topic of conspiracy, six unnamed co-conspirators were included in the indictment.
We already know who most of them are and why they're listed in that indictment.
You know, for Trump to be involved in a conspiracy, you have to list those who he conspired with.
But they've not been indicted thus far.
So do you imagine that we'll see an indictment against them in this case or in a separate case or at all?
Well, I mean, I have no special insider knowledge about, you know, any plans that may exist or don't, or that don't exist with respect to the future prosecutions.
You know, it occurred to me reading it that, you know, it at least becomes, you know, a mitigating factor at someone's sentencing if they voluntarily cooperate.
in other prosecutions.
And so Donald Trump was obviously the ringleader and the central actor here.
I mean, the various right-wing groups had obtained permits to protest on January the 20th.
They were planning to assemble against Joe Biden's inauguration.
And Trump convinced them to move their protests from the 20th of January to the 6th of January.
And he was the one who tried to convince everybody this wasn't over that, you know, things could still be moved if Mike Pence just had the courage to do what needed to be done.
And so he was the one who turned the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history, including the civil war, into a moment of cataclysmic violent conflict.
That was all his doing.
So, you know, I think it would make sense to say.
say that, you know, he went out and found this clown show of lawyers to tell him what he wanted
to hear. And if one or two of them wanted to tell the truth, that would make sense. And that's
something that should be considered, you know, when they face their own prosecution.
Yeah. So, you know, this case really was built for speed in the sense that Donald Trump is the only, you know, named, indicted person in this
in this indictment. With that said, do you agree with Jack Smith's decision to basically not indict
these other co-conspirators in service of a faster prosecution for Donald Trump? I mean,
if they had included six other people in this prosecution, God knows that this thing would have
languished for a lot longer than it's probably going to take now, just focusing narrowly on
one defendant. Yeah, I mean, delay and postpone is the name of the game for Donald Trump. And
So I would not second guess in any way the prosecutorial decision to set it up as they have
and to move as quickly as they can.
There's clearly enough time to prosecute a single individual for these offenses over the
next year.
You know, we've got the Mike Pence's out there who are able to acknowledge what Trump
did and how it was wrong and how it was illegal and unconstitutional and yet still managed
to defend him or cast the DOJ's case against him as being unfair.
What does that say to you about the state of the Republican field?
Well, I mean, it's an incoherent posture that Mike Pence has put himself into,
and embarrassing and humiliating one.
You know, I mean, he acts as if, I mean, he obviously made the right decision on January 6th,
but he acts as if this is some kind of superficial, intellectual,
disagreement between him and Donald Trump because he doesn't want to offend Trump supporters
anymore. These are the people who are yelling hang Mike Pence and bring him out. So, you know,
I don't know what to say. You know, I think he'd been a much stronger position if he said
there's some things that we did that I'm proud of. But Donald Trump,
you know, blew the doors off the hinges on January 6 and has clearly proven himself not fit for
public office or public service. And I'm going to go against it. But instead, it's just this constant
mealy-mouthed effort to have it both ways and to attack the Department of Justice for doing their
job. Would he really not want Donald Trump to be prosecuted for these crimes against America?
I mean, there were Republicans who were describing what happened on January 6 as terrorism.
Mitch McConnell, even after he voted to acquit on the totally fraudulent grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial over a former president, which was a matter we disposed of on the first day when we went over to the Senate.
Even McConnell took great pains to point out that Donald Trump still could be prosecuted, indicating he should be
prosecuted in a court of law. And in fact, that was the line of Trump's most diehard supporters
during the impeachment trial saying, look, if he committed crimes, then that's something that
he should be prosecuted for. But, you know, it shouldn't be done this way. The Senate
doesn't actually have jurisdiction. That argument, by the way, cut against more than two centuries
of precedent and also in the law of the case was something we'd already settled in a motion on
the very first day we were over there, and yet they kept going back to it, which I think makes
Trump's 57 to 43 acquittal, even though a majority of the senators thought he was guilty.
We didn't get to 67. That makes his acquittal, I think, the greatest case of jury null
in American history because the people voting for acquittal like McConnell were getting up
and saying he was essentially guilty afterwards.
To wrap up the Trump stuff, can you speak to the prospect that we could see Trump get
convicted and even sentenced to prison and still be the leading contender for the Republican
nomination for president?
Well, you know, what are the constitutional requirements for running for president?
you've got to be 35. You've got to be a born U.S. citizen. You also cannot have committed
insurrection or rebellion against the government under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,
which disqualifies you from ever serving again. So, I mean, it's a very rocky, winding,
twisting path to get to him running for president again. But he clearly exercises a stranglehold
spell over the Republican Party, which is operating a lot more like an authoritarian cult of
personality than it is Abraham Lincoln's political party, which was an anti-slavery, pro-freedom,
anti-no-nothing pro-immigration party.
So, you know, but here's where we are.
I do believe that the vast majority of the people reject this kind of authoritarianism and
no-nothingism.
And, you know, Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes in 2020.
And what's the difference between 20 and 24?
Well, we've just added 20 or 25 million.
voters who are young people who are not interested in the party of climate denialism,
you know, marijuana, criminal drug enforcement authoritarianism, anti-choice, reproductive tyranny.
I mean, the GOP has nothing for the young people of America who are interested in freedom and democracy.
Um, so I just think that, uh, Joe Biden's margins are increasing dramatically with the demographic, um, addition of millions of young people voting.
And it probably doesn't help him that he's got a, God knows how many charges, uh, hanging around his neck by the time he actually, by the time the election actually does roll around by the time people start voting, he'll have likely four indictments and maybe around a hundred charges that he's contending with.
So that probably, uh, isn't going to redound to his electoral benefit either.
You know, last month you decided not to run for the U.S. Senate.
Can you speak a little on what helped you reach that decision?
Well, you know, I do think we're in the fight of our lives to defend democratic institutions
in our freedom against authoritarianism in America and all over the world.
You know, the heart of the struggle right now, of course, is in the brutal imperialist Russian invasion.
of Ukraine and attack against the Ukrainian people. But Donald Trump, who is Vladimir Putin's fellow
traveler and a fellow champion of illiberal democracy like war-bound in Hungary, they have set themselves
at war against democratic institutions. And so for me, the only question was, am I better being
in a situation where I'm the lead Democrat on the oversight committee?
And if we win the House back, chair the Oversight Committee, and fighting to win the House back and helping Democrats all over the country.
I'm on my way to Minnesota and then Colorado and then Michigan, and I'm out there working to build big, robust Democratic majority.
I'm my better off campaigning in Maryland to go to the Senate where, you know, I don't even know if I'd be able to get on the Judiciary Committee.
They don't have an oversight committee like that.
And so it was a tough call because I love my state very much.
And I love the idea of being able to go, you know, statewide in campaign.
There's still people bugging me about it every day.
So maybe it's not completely over.
But at this point, I feel like I'm in the right place to be fighting this crucial battle for American democracy.
And finally, let's end with this.
You've announced that your cancer is in remission, thank God.
How you doing?
How do you feel is your life back to normal?
well thank you for asking i you know um i've completed three months of recovery since um i finished my
chemotherapy um the great news is i did a pet scan and there's still no sign of any cancer cells which is
awesome um i don't have nausea and i don't have neuropathy and every day i'm regaining my
physical strength um and you know if i thought maybe i could
be doing all the oversight stuff and fighting Trump and running for Senate and making my recovery,
then maybe I would have just tried to do it all.
But at least when I made the decision a couple of months ago, I thought that that was too much, you know.
Yeah. Well, Congressman, obviously, your position as an impeachment manager and as a member of the
January 6th committee has played a monumental role in the indictment that we're seeing now.
And then finally witnessing the first steps of accountability against Donald Trump.
As always, thank you for the work that you've been doing.
If there is one person who exemplifies integrity, it's you.
So with that said, thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.
Thank you for your kind words, Brian.
I hang tough and keep up the great work, man.
Thanks again to Congressman Raskin.
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.