No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump's biggest lifeline in trial quickly evaporates

Episode Date: September 10, 2023

Trump’s options to avoid legal accountability are quickly evaporating. Brian interviews Senator Amy Klobuchar about some news regarding the government’s ability to negotiate lower drug prices, when these lower prices go into effect, and how the government actually saves money by doing so.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 options to avoid legal accountability quickly evaporating, and I interview Senator Amy Klobuchar about some major news regarding the government's ability to negotiate lower drug prices, when these lower prices go into effect, and how the government actually saves money by doing so. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. And just like that, another Trump lifeline seems to have evaporated. So Mark Meadows tried to get his case removed from state court to federal court, that's Fulton County to federal court, arguing that because he was a lot of.

a federal official, acting on behalf of Donald Trump, who was also a federal official, that that was grounds to be tried in federal court. And what happened here would be important because if Mark Meadows was able to get his case removed to the federal system, then that would bode well for Trump, whose Hail Mary play here is clearly going to be trying the same thing. So all eyes were on Mark Meadows here and this decision only to find that a federal judge, that's Judge Steve Jones, rejected Meadows effort to remove this to federal court. I'm going to read a short excerpt from what Judge Jones wrote.

Quote, the court concludes that Meadows has not shown that the actions that triggered the state's prosecution related to his federal office. Meadows' participation on the January 2nd, 2021 call was political in nature and involved the president's private litigation, neither of which are related to the scope of the office of White House chief of staff. The court finds that these contributions to the phone call with Secretary Raffensberger went beyond those activities that are within the official role of the White House chief of staff. end quote. So in other words, yes, Meadows was a federal official, but in order for this case to be removed to federal court, his actions would have had to be under the scope of his official duties as White House chief of staff. And trying to help his boss undermine an election so that he could anoint himself the winner with the help of his criminal enterprise ain't part of his official

duties. So no, you don't get the benefit of having been a federal official when you are currently on trial for abusing that office. So yes, Meadows will have to endure a trial in Fulton County, Georgia, as he should. But more important is what it says about the inevitable Trump effort also to remove this trial to federal court. Just this past week, Trump's attorney has submitted a filing that he may seek to remove the case to federal court, which is nonsense. You don't submit filings to say you may do something.

You either do them or you don't. But obviously, he's going to request this removal. And while Judge Jones made clear that the Meadows decision only impacted Mark Meadows, it obviously doesn't bode well for Trump. Like, think about it. If a judge found that Meadows' actions weren't within the scope of his deal, duties while assisting Trump, then how could the guy who directed those actions? How could Trump be any different? So again, look, anything can happen, but this really isn't a good

sign for Trump in his effort to remove this case to federal court. And by the way, not for nothing, but even if Trump was successful in removing this case to federal court, that still doesn't mean he'd be able to pardon himself. The trial would still be for state charges. It would still be prosecuted by Fawney Willis and the Fulton DA's office. The only difference is that the case itself would be tried in federal court with a different jury. And that's the goal here. Like Trump and his accolades want a jury pool that's not so blue like the one they have in Fulton County, which, I mean, I'll bet they do, but I'd offer that one good way to avoid a blue jury pool is to maybe not commit crimes and jurisdictions with blue jury pools. That's probably

where I'd start. So at this point, Trump's options in court are dwindling. In Florida, Marlago's IT manager has already flipped on him. In Fulton County, a bunch of fake electors and Mark Meadows have all signaled that their defense will be to throw Trump under the bus in their trials. Also in Fulton County, the trial will be starting in earnest, at least with Kenneth Cheesbrough and possibly Sidney Powell literally next month. In D.C., where Trump is the only defendant, that trial is starting only eight weeks after the date requested by Jack Smith.

All of these trials are on track to be completed and, if necessary, sentence before the 2024 election. And it's all but certain that Trump will be in a courtroom more than the campaign trail for the first half of 2024. And if you think that that's bad, when it comes to the second half of 2020, he may very well be spending that time in a prison cell, depending on the verdicts from these trials. So is Trump consolidating support from the Republican base?

Sure. His poll numbers are going up in the Republican primary right now. Is that going to help him if he's a convicted felon? Is that going to help him expand his base of support in 2024 beyond what it was in 2020? Is it going to help attract independence and young people and suburban moms? I mean, not on this planet. So we'll continue to watch these cases unfold.

And I'm certain that we'll continue to watch Trump's efforts at evading accountability fail. So he may blame everyone else for his problems, but if he really wants to find the person responsible, he should probably start with himself. Next step is my interview with Senator Amy Klobuchar. Now I've got Senator Amy Klobuchar. Thanks so much for taking the time.

Well, thanks, Brian. It is wonderful to be on again. So we just celebrated the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. Your bill served as the basis for the provision in that law that allowed Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. This is something that Democrats, have been trying to do since forever.

Now, the list of drugs whose prices can be negotiated was finally released. What drugs were chosen and how are they chosen? OK, so first of all, it's not quite forever, but about two decades ago, the big pharma companies got this sweetheart deal written into law that you can negotiate prices for 50 million Americans, which by the way, for people who aren't seniors

who happen to be listening, it sets the tone and the amount for a lot of other drug negotiations as well. So it's going to make a difference for anyone. So what did they do? Well, they chose blockbuster drugs that were set at what I believe are artificially high rates. Drugs like Sorrelto for blood clots, drugs like eloquist for blood clots, diabetes, just those

two I just mentioned, nearly 5 million people use them. Drugs like Jardians, Genuvia, those are diabetes drugs. So here's an unbelievable statistic. Those 10 drugs they picked for different psoriasis, blood cancers. Last year, up to 9 million seniors spent 3.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for these 10 drugs. So can you imagine what we can do when we start adding 15 more drugs, which is next year, 15 more drugs, than the next year, then the next year, 20 more. more drugs. And so this idea, I mean, I would like to do even more sooner, but this is the negotiation, what happened. But we're finally going to unleash the power of Medicare to negotiate, which just

doesn't help seniors. It's going to help everyone. When you say that Medicare will be able to negotiate lower drug prices, is there still the possibility that these pharmaceutical companies can figure out a way not to negotiate in good faith or not to put our prices on par with what the rest of the world would pay when they negotiate lower prices. It's like 250% more we're paying, by the way, while our taxpayers are investing in the research, is there a way they could manipulate? Well, I'm sure they're going to do every way to find something. Clearly an astute question.

However, right now, number one, is they're suing in court. They've got nine lawsuits going on, all these high-priced lawyers. They have three lobbyists for every member of Congress. That's why with the president's leadership, we were finally able. the first present that got this done, despite all the talk by everyone else. And they also are spending hundreds of a million dollars have spent, will spend in ad campaigns. So let me tell you how they manipulate. They manipulate with this sweetheart provision that we're now taking on. They also manipulate with a patent system. So what they do is they get a drug locked in for a long

period of time. And then they make a tiny little change, tiny little change. It's called product hopping. So they make a change to it. And then they say, oh, it's a new patent. Now we're locked in for 10 more years. So we actually passed a bill out of judiciary bipartisan to deal with that. They file sham petitions to stop it. Senator Grassley and I have a bill to stop that. And then this is the real unbelievable part. Major pharmaceutical companies pay off generics, their competition, to keep their products off the market. It's called pay for delay. Senator Grassley and I also have a bill. All of these came through Judiciary Committee in the last few months. Not an easy committee to get bills true, as you know. And we did that. So now those are headed to the floor. So I think taking them on in their lawsuits, which the administration is doing, the Justice Department, continuing to implement this and be very strong in negotiations. And then, as you point out, looking at the other ways they're getting around it by passing these bills, you've got to, it's not just one side. fits all. That's why we did the insulin cap, $35 bucks a month. That's why we did the free vaccines

for things like shingles and pneumonia. That's why we've got the $2,000 out of pocket cap. All those things passed and are being implemented already the free vaccines are in for seniors. But then you've got to look at everyone else. And it's hard enough to get this pass for seniors. You can imagine when we've got AARP on our side, what we're going to be dealing with with everyone else. But we can't stop here because they have literally owned Washington, but they don't own me, and they don't own a number of other people that are willing to take them on, including the president. Well, to that exact point, is there any indication as to how all of those bills that are working their way or that have passed committee that are working their way to the full floor of the Senate for a vote, how they'll do? Because, and we'll talk about this in a moment, but Republicans haven't exactly been falling over themselves to pass any of any of this legislation anyway. I mean, there was no Republicans who voted for the Inflation Reduction Act.

And thanks for making that point, Brian. So on the big ticket item, the Medicare negotiation that we led talking about with those 10 drugs that are going to be negotiated over the next year, we didn't get one Republican vote on that. I've never gotten leading the bill with 34 were co-sponsors. They were all Democrats on that bill. So that's the one that we did with that 51 vote margin, that dramatic overnight of voting where they were like literally seeing if someone will follow.

over so we lose a vote that's how close our margin and no one did which is which is a which is a tough risk in uh the u.s government could be uh could be could be rough sometimes we got it done so um that was no help these other bills i mentioned on patents we do have some bipartisan support for those bills um and so that is helpful because we've got to get it through the house as well and we're not going to have one of those five-day votes over this bill and over the patent bills, right? So I've got to find, at least not this year. So I've got to find another way to do it, and that's with the Republican.

So the hope would be to get them attach or have a week of votes just on this, and then we push them over to the House, and then it's on them. They better get it done because people are really mad. Like 80, 90%, depending on what the question is, the American people are with us on that. They're pissed off because they know that they put the money into the research, taxpayer money, and they also know that's why people go up to Canada on buses to get less expensive products. People in my own state have done that. So people are really attuned to this issue. And that is good for those that are trying to make change, which is the Democratic Party.

Well, and the benefit of this, too, is that this would be a bill or these would be bills narrowly focused on lowering drug prices and making sure that your drug prices do stay down. And so it's not, it would be more difficult for Republicans to vilify as this like nebulous attack on democracy or whatever, you know, whatever they claim it's going to be when it is just narrowly focused on bringing the prices of drugs down, which is not to say they won't attack it anyway, but at least it'll be easier for, you know, for people to recognize what that, what these bills actually do. And I think that's really on people's mind right now for obvious reasons. And so the work that we are doing is the Democrats to bring child care costs down, which we're having trouble getting them. on board on that bringing and you ask people what they care about ticketing it is they care a lot about bringing costs down for their families right now i mean they care about jobs and good paying jobs and and there's an incredible record uh that the president and those of us in congress that it helped get us through the pandemic helping our workers helping our businesses um that has made a

difference and so because they're the ones that get the jobs um and now i will say the cost thing is really on people's minds. It always has been. And if you are too afraid to take on these big interests, then you're not going to be able to make progress. And so this was a major, major win and a major victory for the American people that were finally negotiating these drugs.

And they're not just, let's pick out 10-pidly drugs. Yeah. All that money and out-of-pocket costs. I realized it in August, everywhere I went after the announcement was made at the Minnesota State Fair, at Labor Day events, just in a parade, people would come up and they're like, look, my mom takes a ralto or, you know, I take this eloquist. It was kind of extraordinary. They actually would

mention the drugs to me. They were very attuned. And that's a problem for the people that are opposing us and for the candidates who are saying, oh, I'd roll this back. People are going to not only know what we have done with the insulin cap and with the free vaccines for shingles, and the like, but they're also going to know what they're expecting to get down the line. And that's why I feel so good that we have been united on this. And when do these lower costs go into effect? So the ones I mentioned, which are big ticket items, a $35 limit on insulin. That's in effect now per month for seniors.

What's interesting, and I predicted this would happen, some of the drug companies, major ones have now said we're going to extend that to non-seniors. It's sort of hard to explain why you're charging a kid $100. a month and the senior is 35, so they're actually voluntarily doing it, and then we'd like to pass a bill for that $35 limit. The free vaccine, that is now. So people on Medicare can get their shingles and which was costing the money. The $2,000 cap is 2025. That's for all out-of-pocket pharmaceuticals. And then the negotiation we're talking about goes on. I think the prices first hit in 2026. But my, you know, everyone would love to do it sooner.

but that's just because of negotiations are going to take a while. I think people are going to know what's happening and they're not going to want to rock backwards. But then when we start adding 15, 25 drugs, I believe those negotiations are going to go faster and faster. How does allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices like this actually save the government money here? Well, think about it.

The government, when I mentioned that co-pay number for our seniors, that's just they're paying out of pocket. The government is playing in some cases. the bulk of this with the Medicare coverage for for pharma so the government is paying a lot of money billions of dollars for these drugs so any kind of negotiation and we do have a benchmark the veterans administration the VA gets really good prices on negotiations for our veterans they should be able to do that Medicare's been banned from negotiating and so as a result the sweetheart deal has allowed the pharmaceutical companies to get whatever they want.

want from the government, from out of pocket for seniors for the price of these drugs. This is a bit tongue in cheek here. But if allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices lowers costs for Americans and it saves the U.S. government money, why don't Republicans support it? Why didn't we get a single Republican to support the Inflation Reduction Act? I really, because we have looked at every side of this for any arguments they've made on things like innovation. We got an independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office score on this that just showed that that wasn't the fact. They say these things. And in the end, you got to follow the money. You've got to look at the fact that there's three lobbyists for every member of

Congress. And they put hundreds of million dollars in an ad campaign. And that's where they're standing. We're standing on the side of where the American people are. Okay, let's finish off with this. How does it work in terms of adding more drugs in the future? Is there any way that that could be blocked is there is it is it written into the into the law that uh we will continue to see uh more drugs added ad nauseum or is there is there a cutoff how does this work good like there's like starts with 10 next year they add 15 the year after that 15 more the year after that 20 i think it gets up to 80 okay so if you're looking at this as a voter as a citizen uh you've got to look at the fact that you want to keep in that direction and add more drugs i would center Sanders and i would

have like done all of them honestly you got to look do you want to like go in that direction or do you want to go backwards because you're right it's just written into law a president working with a congress that didn't agree with us on this could reverse it just like that the other way it could be reversed which i believe we're going to triumph is in court they are claiming the pharmaceutical companies are claiming that it's some kind of a taking that they're being forced to do this it's very ironic because they don't have to provide drugs to 50 million seniors, right? That another company could or something like that. So they're arguing that it's some kind of a judicial taking, a legislative taking of their property,

which just shows the hubris that they operate under. All right. Well, we'll leave it there. Again, as I end up saying every time you're on, thank you so much for the work that you're doing. I'm sure it's going to impact, you know, tens, if not hundreds of millions of people. So with that said, Senator Klobuchar, thanks for taking the time. Thank you. It was fun to talk about this in-depth, as usual, with you, Brian. Thank you. Thanks again to Senator Klobuchar. 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.