No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump's Georgia case falls apart before his eyes

Episode Date: August 27, 2023

Trump’s Fulton County case has already started to fall apart. Brian interviews former White House press secretary and MSNBC host Jen Psaki about her thoughts on the first GOP debate, whether her legal guests predict any prison time for Trump, what question she’d be getting the most as press secretary right now, and how she thinks Biden should handle Trump’s indictments.Listen to the "Inside with Jen Psaki" podcast: https://apple.co/3Pd67RhRead Jen's most recent MSNBC Daily entry: https://on.msnbc.com/44wGkrMShop 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 trials already starting to fall apart, and I interview former White House press secretary and MSNBC host Jen Saki about her thoughts on the first GOP debate, whether her legal guests predict any prison time for Trump, what questions she'd be getting the most as press secretary right now, and how she thinks Biden should handle Trump's indictments. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. All right, so I don't think any of us were under the impression

that Trump's defense in these trials was going to go especially smoothly, right? But there are some things happening, especially in Fulton County, Georgia right now, that are already suggesting before this thing even gets out of the pretrial period that Trump is going to have a really rough go in Georgia. So first off, we have three of the fake electors who've been indicted in Georgia who've come forward and said that they acted either at the direction of Trump or on Trump's behalf. Now, full disclosure, they're also trying to have this case removed to federal court. And so they're arguing that because Trump was a federal official, that's grounds to be able to do that, which by the way, most likely isn't going to fly. But more importantly, these people may be previewing their defense here, and that defense might be to throw Trump himself under the bus. And if by chance they have evidence of the claim that Trump directed them, then that's pretty much a death blow to Trump in his defense in this trial. This may also all be a signal to Fannie Willis that they're willing to cooperate.

I mean, like, coming out and basically broadcasting that Donald Trump is at fault is about as clear a sign as you could give to prosecutors that you're ready to flip. And if it means these people protect their own freedom, then I think they're going to opt to do that. Here's another complication for Trump, also in Georgia. Days ago, Trump's former attorney who had helped orchestrate this whole fake electorate this whole fake elector scheme, that's Kenneth Cheesebro, he requested a speedy trial in Georgia, which would force a trial that comes either within or immediately after the current grand jury term. And I think his strategy here was to make this request, knowing that this is a sprawling 19 defendant RICO case, and assuming that prosecutors wouldn't be ready to go to trial right away.

and if prosecutors didn't bring it to trial when he made the formal request, he could have filed a motion to have the charges dismissed. Not a bad plan. Only the issue came when Fawney Willis actually agreed with him. She requested an October 23rd,

2023 trial date, and then the judge just granted it, meaning at least the first defendant will be tried in fewer than two months from now. And there are two issues that are presented for Trump here then. First off, prosecutors may look to batch defendants in this first round,

this first trial. They've got 19 defendants in total to try, at least for the moment. They may try to use their time more efficiently and request that five more defendants join Cheesebro in the first round. One of them may very well be Donald Trump. Prosecutors may not want to show their hands and reveal their defense to prove the conspiracy charges and then make it easier for Trump to get off if he's in a subsequent round, and they wouldn't have to worry about that if he was among the first defendants.

But even if they don't opt to batch him with Cheesebro, consider the fact that if these trials will be starting in earnest in October, then Trump is going to have a lot harder time delaying this thing, you know, years into the future when other defendants have already proven that they are able to get themselves into a courtroom immediately. So the next time a Trump attorney says that, you know, the timelines are impossible here that this wouldn't be able to happen any earlier than two years out into the future. Remember that this October trial is all the proof you need that actually it is very much possible to bring this case to trial immediately. And finally, one more pretty major complication for Trump.

on both sides of the aisle have come forward and suggested that there are already grounds to disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot in 2024 on 14th Amendment grounds. Based on his incitement of an insurrection on January 6, two things will very likely happen. The first is that a secretary of state, certainly in a blue state, will refuse to put him on the ballot, and they're going to cite the 14th Amendment, which will trigger a lawsuit. The second is that a secretary of state in a red state will put him on the ballot, and someone will sue to have him taken off. And that will, of course, trigger a lawsuit.

those cases will eventually jump from state court to federal court because ultimately this is an issue that will affect the federal government and it could be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, which isn't great considering this is a six three conservative bench. But at the same time, Trump has a pretty dismal success rate when it comes to litigating his efforts to steal the 2020 election, including in front of the Supreme Court. And of course, all of that, everything I just named is notwithstanding the fact that he's facing 91 criminal charges and And that unto itself is a pretty big complication. But if things are turning this much against Donald Trump before a single trial even starts

in earnest, then I can't imagine how this guy keeps his head above water over the next year. Next step is my interview with Jen Saki. Now I've got the host of Inside with Jen Saki on MSNBC. Jen, thanks so much of coming back on. Oh, it's great to be here with you. So I was just on with you on MSNBC. It's like a crossover episode here. That's right.

So let's flip the tables here. Okay. Winner and loser of the last debate. Okay. Loser is definitely Ron DeSantis because he was not memorable. Yes, he had the crazy language at the end about the border and immigrants. And really, there was so many different weird things that happened to that debate that probably hasn't received enough attention. But he wasn't particularly memorable.

He also, no one even cared to attack him, which is a bad sign if you were the frontrunner technically on that stage. The winner for me, look, Vivek obviously was a winner in a lot of ways because, frankly, skill-wise, skills-wise, he was a better debater than any of them. He had some insane things to say, so it's a bit of a mixed bag that could hurt him if he actually moves forward at all. I actually thought that Mike Pence did far better than I thought he was going to do and then most people. And he may have helped himself not to win the primary. We're not in crazy talk here. Yeah. But to send that message to evangelicals that he is the pro-life candidate out of whack with the electorate writ large, but very in line with the Republican electorate.

Yeah. I mean, to both of your points, I don't think that there's much of a lane more broadly for Mike Pence in the hang Mike Pence party. But also that exact issue isn't, you know, is the issue that's really hurting Republicans more than any other issue in the entire political sphere here. But I just want to dig into the Vivek thing for a moment. I agree that to to the extent that he was able to overperform on that debate stage that he won. But I think the reason he's finding popularity is that he is doing the popular thing in the GOP right now, which is Trumpism. But the people who like Trumpism already have the real thing. They've got Trump.

And if it's between Vivek and Trump, they're not going to opt for the cover band. So is this whole thing just ultimately a doomed effort? Well, first of all, the vague said climate change is a hoax, which even many Republicans don't, many, the majority of Republicans don't even agree with that, right? He had a lot of insane things to say. And it's not just that he has the wrong position in my view, but in the view of most people on that stage and Democrats on Russia and Ukraine, is that he doesn't seem to have a grasp of the issues, of those issues. So that all makes it very challenging for him to actually move forward in a serious way. I do think that he is more than doing Trump. He is doing Trump in a youthful, vigorous way because all of them are trying to be Trump. Not all of them, but they're trying to be Trump in different ways.

I mean, Desantis is trying to be Trump in the policies, but he does not have the same evil charisma. So he just, and you just, you have that or you don't. Vivek, it thinks climate change is a hoax, crazy, but has that charisma and has it in a more youthful, frankly, if you don't listen to what he has to say and you just look at his energy, a less scary way. So that is the thing that is a little, I don't think he's going to win the nomination, but I do think he's going to do better in the early states at this point than people anticipate. Yeah. I do think that he kind of figured out. I don't think he really

cares about the issues. I think he's just saying what he thinks is going to cause the most chaos. And so in that way, he's doing Trumpism. He just knows that, you know, ultimately at the end of the day, this thing is an attention game. And if he wants to grab the headlines, grab all that attention, he's just got to do the thing that's going to cause the most chaos. And if it means he's got to be the only person on stage raising his hand when they ask about Ukraine, then that's what he's going to do. I don't think he gives a shit either way. I mean, yeah, there's a part of me that's like, does he have a group of friends from college? And he's like, hey, guys, I've had a really successful private sector career. I'm going to run for

president and just see what happens. And now he's like on a text chain with them like, can you believe this. They like me. You know, I mean, it's just because I'm not naive enough, even though I'm a policy nerd, just like you are to think that policy discussions are the driver in the Republican primary right now. However, this, and this is, yes, some of them were pushing back on him because they're nervous about him rising. But I do think there was an element of some people on that stage pushing back on him because what he was saying was not just crazy, but so lacking of an understanding of, like, how governing works. I mean, how policymaking works, whatever you think of policy issues.

It's a very, like, do your own research crowd appearance by Vivek there. Is there a particular moment during the debate that you thought did the most damage to a candidate? In some ways, I'm not trying to cop out here, but in some ways, the damage done was kind of the lack of taking advantage of the moment, in my view. I mean, because Tim Scott, he has a compelling personal story. What he had to say on abortion was insane. I mean, he basically said that states that are for allowing women to have choices about their own health care should not be able to have that choice, even though he's for states' rights. Okay, so that is crazy.

But he also was kind of like not an effective messenger or communicator. I do not see how that helps him. And there's the Ronda Santasness of it all. I think there were only a few memorable people in moments. I don't know if anybody kind of injured themselves to death. That's completely injured, yeah. Maybe Vivek, if he actually became a serious candidate because some of the things he had to say were bananas, but I don't think he's going to be the nominee. So I don't, you know.

Yeah. So let me do a little variation of it then. And I know it's hard to surprise anybody anymore, you know, given how long we've been staring at this train wreck, but was there a moment that left you at a loss for words? I guess what, yeah, what was the most surprising moment for you of the entire night? If there was one. And I mean, again, the bar may be so low that unless somebody, you know, unless somebody exploded into a ball of flames on that stage, really nothing would surprise us.

I wouldn't say I was surprised. But I don't think, just because we're not surprised, and you are going to remind people of this. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have a pause at some of the moments that occurred on that stage. I mentioned kind of the end later in the debate when they were talking about immigrants and immigration and in immigration, some of the language that was used by Ron DeSantis and others is violent. You know, I mean, it is dark. That is scary. It's not that he's never used before he has. But the other part, and I know there's been lots of talk about this, and it is the moment that will be remembered from the debate, is when they were asked if they would support

a, the former president, if he was convicted of crimes, it's not just that they set, that seven of them, right, raised their hands. It's that they looked around to see what the other people were doing. They couldn't make a decision, some of them, or that's what it appeared. or on their own. And that question is... Profiles and courage there. It also should be a no-brainer. I mean, you're supposed to run for president

because you want to lead, right? That should be a no-brainer. It also is... It stuck out to me as quite contradictory that all of them, who spoke to it, seemed to defend the actions of Vice President Pence, right? On January 6th, passionately. Some of them...

I mean, that was probably one of Tim Scott's more, memorable moments and Chris Christie. They also, Chris Christie aside, so they think Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6th, most of us would agree with you, right? Yet they still would support the former president if he's convicted of trying to overturn the election. Those things are not consistent. So I don't know that that's the memorable moment, but that is just it tells you a lot about the state of the politics of the party. Yeah, I think that's perfectly put. Do you think that Trump made a mistake and not basically showing up and kind of ceding all that attention to these other candidates in what is, as I was saying before, an attention economy? No.

Unless, of course, you believe that Elon's Twitter metrics are right, that what, four and a half billion people tuned into the Tucker interview? I find that hard for me to believe, but I mean, who knows? But I don't think Trump made a mistake. Currently, this is all about a moment in time. Bowls are moments in time. Decisions about political campaigns are moments in time. whether or not this bends the mind, and it does. Currently, he is far and a way ahead in the Republican primary.

He is also Thursday and his mugshot, he thinks, and we'll try to make a win with the Republican electorate. It is not a win in the general election, two different electorates. For him to go on that stage, he was only talked about for what? I'm sure, like 15 minutes. It would have been two hours, you know, not necessarily because of the moderator. but because maybe not two hours, actually. Let me just correct myself there. But there would have been more focus on him, critiques of him.

He was not touched, barely, barely. And so I don't think he made a mistake and not attending. I mean, you can make the moral argument. You should participate in debates. It's part of democracy. Yes, of course. But from the politics of it. Right.

And to your point, he wasn't touched. And everything he would have been touched on is all this stuff that's just hanging around his neck, like an albatross, right? Like all of these indictments, all of this, all of the impending trials and on and on. You know, immediately after Trump's mugshot was released, he, of course, tried to co-op the image using it for merch and fundraising. What's your thoughts on that? Like, is it a savvy political move to make your own arrest the cornerstone of your campaign?

You know, I taped an interview with Governor Sununu this week where we talked about this. And what he said stuck with me, because I've been trying to wrap my head around this question too. It's like Trump thinks it's a good thing. His people think it's a good thing, this mugshot and the merchandise and the touting it. That is him trying to project strength. That is what he thinks is his power. Independence hate it, right? Obviously, Democrats do. So what's the goal here, right? I mean, it's like, yeah, do merchandise. Sure, people will buy it. I guess maybe you'll make money, some of which will be spent on your own legal defense. But if the goal is to return to the White House, a mugshot is not the, I mean, of course

it's not, as I'm saying this out loud, but it is not a helpful path in getting there. So that's how I would look at the politics. I completely agree. I think that by virtue of doing this, he's showing that the goal really isn't to get any of those. Look, he lost by 7 million votes. The goal here has to be to expand to broaden his coalition and releasing a mugshot and reminding voters of the fact that you're under that you're contending with 91 criminal felony charges right

now ain't going to bring anybody else on board, but it is going to, you know, drawing money from the base and allow you to, you know, squeeze your marks of more dollars every day. And so I think at the end of the day, he's kind of, he's broadcasting what, what his actual goal is. And it's not really to win this election. It's just to protect himself. Or, or at least if it's not to win the election right now, it's just, you know, to do what he does, which is win this 24-hour news cycle, get through the day and figure out what his goals for the day. are, which, again, is to make money to protect himself legally, and then he can figure out the next thing later down the line. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, who knows what his money

situation is, A. I mean, the fact that he, um, they have- Bondsman, right? Like, I mean, also, the fact that they asked for, for, um, the legal documents, I think in the January 6th case, to be able to, the discovery, to be able to be shared with volunteer lawyers, people not fully employed. It's like, can he not pay them? Does he not want to pay them? I was under the impression that every lawyer who worked for Donald Trump was a volunteer lawyer at the end of the day, whether they want to be or not. Whether they signed up for that or not, that's true. And he may in his mind be just dealing week to week day to day, right, on the politics of it. So, yeah, I mean, he's running clearly in part because he wants to pardon himself, should that be needed, right? To save his own,

they've said this. I mean, there's like reporting on his team talking about this. And so, but you can't, to your point, win, no one can, not just Trump, nor can Joe Biden, nor can anyone running for president win unless you expand the electorate of your base. That is, you can't. It's the country. It's not a primary. You know, you've spoken to a lot of legal experts and not legal experts. Is there any consensus among the people who you've spoken with on whether you think that Trump will be sentenced to prison for any of these convictions? It's such a hard question. Yeah, I mean, like, you know, obviously it's all conjecture at this point, but I am very

curious. Yeah, it's also the one that like people I talk to in my normal life, the vast majority are not on MSNBC working in politics or lawyers want to know. It's impossible to know, right? It is the timeline of these things. It is now Georgia, that's why Georgia is unique as we know, right? because there are guidelines that are very specific and there are you can't a president can't pardon themselves and they can't pardon anyone else and the governor not not that brian kem seems

inclined to pardon trump but like couldn't even do that um but i think of the lawyer so this is not me because i'm not a lawyer there are all sorts of things does he do a plea deal that doesn't seem like his vibe but who knows um in a plea deal could there be a discussion if i'm not running for office many of the legal experts I've spoken to have said, yes, there could be, right? Could he be under house arrest? Sure, that's an option. Could he go to jail? Sure, he could. So I don't know. I don't know what the consensus is. And it may be because we're still earlier in the process. Yeah. And by the way, just on the on the house arrest thing, what a bummer that would be considering not everybody gets to live in a, you know, a beach resort. So that would be a real

depressing house arrest situation for Donald Trump if that pans out. Yeah. Given that the pretrial conditions in both D.C. and Georgia preclude him from obstructing justice and tampering with witnesses, do you think that he'll be able to control himself and not obstruct and not tamper or is exhibiting self-control to keep himself out of a jail cell just too big of an ass for the guy? Well, I mean, I think we know the answer to that question, which is no. The question is, see, now we're just going to be like in our crossover episode here for a second. And now because I want to know from you is like, do you think there are going to be actual consequences? Because this is where the system is tested, right? This is not the fault of the legal system or the judiciary system. But we have not had a figure like Trump before. Normally when you tell people, if his name was John Smith, first of all, he'd probably be in jail, right?

That's what legal experts say, because he's already violated these things. But if he does tamper with witnesses, if he does pressure them, if he threatens them, what judges, what are the consequences we know he's going to i wish that wasn't the case but we know he's going to what are the consequences now fanny willis seems like she has got no more you know what's to give for um or tolerance i for their efforts to delay manipulate pressure her so maybe um i don't know but but i the consequences and what the consequences are to me is the big question what do you I think what they could do. I think what we're most likely to see. I mean, look, as much as much as I think he deserves and know he deserves some type of pretrial detention. And to your point, if it was anybody else

but him, they would be in a jail cell right now waiting until their trial date. I think one of the tools that they, that one of these judges, Judge Shutkin in D.C., for example, could deploy is, you know, right now she's contending with the question of whether this trial should be on January 2nd, 24 or April of 26. And meanwhile, she put, she laid down the marker of what these conditions of his preach of what his release should be.

And he keeps breaking them. He keeps breaking the law. He keeps tampering with witnesses, obstructing justice. I think she's going to be way more inclined to have this trial sooner, which is the last thing this guy wants. And he said, she said that. I mean, she said, like, it will make her inclined. Yeah. She told him,

she told him the whole, the ground rules here. And yet he still can't control himself long enough to help himself and give himself a chance to have this trial later. And so instead, I think that is going to be the main tool that we're going to see deployed. And I think we will see an early 2024 trial in the DC case. Buckle up. Have your weaies. If you were still press secretary, what is the question that you would be receiving most right now in light of Trump's fourth indictment? Why doesn't President Biden speak to it? When will he speak to it? Wouldn't he be speaking to it?

What does he think of the trials? And to that point, how do you, and I understand that Biden has to be careful, how do you reconcile wanting to not make Biden look involved because he's not, with also not relinquishing this major vulnerability against the guy who's most likely going to be Biden's opponent and who's polling very closely with him at the moment? They're not relinquishing anything because it doesn't require, it would be hurting them, in my view, if the president was aggressive, he wouldn't do this anyway because he's an institutionalist. But if he was aggressively commenting on the specifics of these trials and all

these developments, that becomes, it makes it politicized, right? Yeah. I know that Trump and his people are going to argue that, but Joe Biden does not need to interject himself into that in this moment. Now, we are still in the summer of indictments, right? We're like, there's developments on timing and trials and all these things. We are not yet in the general election. Yes, it will be Joe Biden and in all likelihood Donald Trump. They will have to, and I think they will come up with a way to talk about this, which it's not either or it's not like either you talk about the trials or you talk about it, not at all. There is a values argument to be made here, a contrasting argument. That's where I think they go with it. It is also similar to how he ran in 2020. So you obviously update it because there's

been 91 counts and for indictments since then. But I don't think he's going to say indictment. I think he's going to say more about like you need a president who's going to stand up and protect the men and women serving overseas and protect our national security to keep you safe. You want a president who believes in democracy and believes who you vote for and who you stand for matters that your voice should be heard. You know, something better than that. But that is obviously about the legal issues without being about the legal issues. Yeah. You know, you've been doing your show inside with Jen Saki for a few months now. What's the thing you miss most about the White House and what's the thing you like most about hosting your own show? So I miss the people,

which sounds very cheesy, but I do miss whatever people's politics are, Joe Biden is a great guy and he's really enjoyable to work for and spend time with. I mean, he knows so much about politics, much about issues. I spent hours with him most days of the week in the Oval Office and could ask him anything. I could also walk into Jake Sullivan's office and ask him like, what the heck is happening on the front lines of Ukraine, right? What is going on in Iran? You know, there is an accessibility to what is the deal with that, which is something we all think who are news junkies are interested in things. And when you're in the White House, you can walk in. Now I can still call these people and talk to them, but it's not exactly the same. I'm not inside there, right, anymore.

in physically, right? The thing that I have loved, I love, I love, I can't believe every day that I get to do this. I did feel like that about being the White House press secretary, but I love asking people questions. And I can't believe I get to talk to Andrew Weissman and Neil Katia like almost every Sunday and be like, what's the deal with this? Why is this going on? I have also loved, which I didn't anticipate because I've been in politics for so long. It's a kind of a small world. Everybody kind of knows each other, right?

Especially in D.C. But one of the things I've loved doing is really spending time with people who I knew but didn't really know, you know. I mean, I went hiking with Jamie Raskin. I went running with Cory Booker. Some of these people, I went to a record shop with Maxwell Frost. You know, some of these people, I knew them, but you don't really know them, know them. And that's been really encouraging. You know, I went out to Michigan with Gretchen Whitmer.

because there's a whole like we're talking about Joe Biden who I've established I love as a human being and is a great president has been a great president in my view in terms of getting things done but I also am excited about all of these like the next generation of people and getting to know them and I've also had a lot of Republicans on people I disagree with who maybe in this street when I was the White House press secretary would have thought I like had devil horns yeah but you know you can still have a conversation and still talk about issues So I've loved that face-to-face. I definitely am a person who loves face-to-face stuff, and that's been a really fun part of this.

Has it been difficult to book Republican guests? I mean, we live in like the most fractured media ecosystems of all time. And so really, there's not a lot of incentive for these people to need to go on anything that can even be perceived as non-right-wing media. You know, I knew and I thought it would be hard from the beginning because I've worked in Democratic politics for 20 years. I hope when people come on, they will think, they will come away saying, I'm tough but fair. And that means I'm not trying to have people on the show to platform them. Marjorie Taylor Green, you are not invited. Like, you know, I mean, not that she's like trying to get on the show.

But I do think that an interesting show is not just about talking to people you agree with. And also that there is common ground and you can find things you agree with with people, even when you disagree on other things. that is how people in the country interact, right? It's not all a debate all the time. And so I actually have had a lot of Republicans on the show. I mean, so far, relatively so. I mean, I've had Governor Sununu a couple of times. I've had John Bolton, Larry Hogan, Alberta Gonzalez. I'm not trying to check a box, but I do think if somebody has an interesting perspective or something interesting to say about what we're all grappling with, then yeah, it's worth having. conversation. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. And I'm not trying to bring them on to make it like a performative debate. Where can we watch, listen, and read more from you? Well, Brian Tyler Cohen, who now has a new newsletter yourself. I have a newsletter on Saturday mornings on MSNBC. Sundays at noon on MSNBC. We have a show every week. We have Governor Sununu on this week. We have some exciting other guests. We're still finalizing.

And also, we have a peacock show every Thursday. And I appear on a range of MSNBC shows. So, yes, those are all the places. Where can we see more of you? Oh, well, hopefully, hopefully on your show more. Of course. Like I said, of course, like I said before, we did our first MSNBC hit together. So that was a lot of fun after the debate.

Yes. And I'll actually put the link to that video in the post description of this video. So people can check that hit out. And I'll, of course, put the link to the, the Inside with Jen Saki podcast and your latest MSNBC daily entry into the show notes and post description of this as well.

So, Jen, thank you so much for taking the time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Thanks again to Jen. 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.